1. Communication the most odd thing about the communications claimed to come from gods to people is that they always exactly match the views of the person receiving the message. How often does one hear of someone getting a message from god that goes against how they think? Thus I would expect that, say, Dominic would hacve his views reinforced by these 'messages' - something that would start to make one think that they came not from a god but from Dominic's own sub-conscious.

2. Physical / Spiritual If we are talking about messages being received from a god - one that is spiritual in nature and not physical - then we need to tackle the tough question of how the non-material can affect the material. Like it or not, we are physical beings and to implant any thoughts requires some very skilful 'adjustments' to our brain chemicals and our neuron connections. We need to get down to the mechanics of how this might be possible and how we might test to see if it can be detected. Any ideas on this one Dominic?

You can measure brain activity when people are thinking, whilst there's still a lot of research needed to work out precisely how the brain works. Also, when a person is brain damaged, how they think, how they perceive things and heck even their personality can be affected - there can be behavioural changes when brain damage is involved. It can also affect a person's intelligence.

you have no idea seppuku...it changes everything. alrighty dominic, reality is relative. my reality may not be your reality. and your reality isn't my reality, even though we co-exist on this big marble in the sky..even if we were right next to each other, we all have our own reality, though we may share a common experience.this coming from a girl with a brain injury. that's my reality.

Aye, we can all perceive reality very differently, even without brain damage how one person's brain functions can be very different to another. I would not like to presume what it's like or claim authority of knowledge of when somebody is brain damaged as I can't speak from experience nor am I an expert.

But I would say, reality itself, never changes, how we perceive it does - we might even have our illusions and certainly, drugs can affect our perception of reality, any hippy will tell you that. However, assuming our senses are working as they should, then we can find common ground in observing evidence in the physical world, I'd say in regards of reality, this is our most reliable asset. A chair is a chair and we can all assess its physical qualities. Of course, those whose senses aren't working as they should would experience the physical world differently, for example, somebody's who's blind. But in general people receive the same sensory data. So I say it's more reliable than our imagination, reason, faith and our perception of reality.

Logged

“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto MusashiWarning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.

2. Physical / Spiritual If we are talking about messages being received from a god - one that is spiritual in nature and not physical - then we need to tackle the tough question of how the non-material can affect the material. Like it or not, we are physical beings and to implant any thoughts requires some very skilful 'adjustments' to our brain chemicals and our neuron connections. We need to get down to the mechanics of how this might be possible and how we might test to see if it can be detected. Any ideas on this one Dominic?

[ I am also equating consciousness = non physical = spiritual = soul, not as dogma or faith but as my definition of 'spiritual' and 'soul' - but the answer to your question is just the paragraph above this one.]

What you're criticizing isn't science, but epistemology. You're using the fallacy of composition to conflate information with the means to organize and utilize it. Science is a methodology, an abstract tool we've formulated to manage the knowledge we work with. If you input the wrong values into a mathematical equation because you took them on faith this does not reflect upon the mathematical process itself; 2+2 will still = 4 regardless of whether you should have used a 5 instead. The means to assess values and the means to process them are two completely separate areas and thus must be addressed independently.

The only assumption in play is the barest of assumptions necessary for a human mind to function - that knowledge itself is possible - but this is before we even begin to discuss science. Science is certainly used to organize and build upon information even if it's simply what we think we know, but the problem with your argument is that it causes you to fall short of your target. The accuracy or even potential inaccuracy of the information itself has no bearing on whether science is or is not the best means to evaluate and categorize it. However, without even a potential basis for knowledge you leave yourself bereft of grounds to assess truth and therefore unable to weigh in on the practicality of any method versus another. Your contention towards "human sense perception" is easily extended to human experience in totality rendering any conclusion you make inherently untenable since you yourself can only appeal to faith in your criticisms.

One of the key underlying assumptions of science is that human sense perception is able to accurately detect the nature of reality. Where devices are used to confirm or enhance human perception (eg camera, thermometer, computer, geiger counter... and many others) then human sense perception is still required to confirm those device's results.

This underlying assumption itself cannot be tested by science because it must first be assumed before science can begin.

This leads to a couple of necessary conclusions which are very significant:

- Science is entirely based on faith. (ie faith in the underlying assumptions of science)

- To the extent that Atheism relies on science (as the only reliable source of truth) it is thus also entirely faith based.

"You have a belief without evidence, just like I do. That's faith" as your justification. I have a parable for just that situation.

Yes it is a kind of faith. It is that same kind of faith that I have that my shoes do not fly around my round when I am asleep and no recording devices are present. I'm sure you share that same faith, the faith of NoFlyingShoeswhlesleeping, how's that faith working out for you? Does it require a deep conviction of resolute solemnity, or do you have that faith because the proposition that your shoes fly around when you are asleep is in contradiction to everything observable about reality?

You are simply describing physical reality. We believe in what we can detect by the senses esp when it is consistent and confirmed by others. That is fine. I'm not denying the experience of physical reality.

1. Now imagine for a moment the physical reality of a cell in the body. How a cell might sense its reality. Why do we assume that our senses provide a true and correct picture of reality while a cell's senses report a totally different 'world'? What makes our senses sacred ? Why are you allowed to assume them correct (like a religious dogma) ? A common answer to this is that we have corroboration by various recording or measurement devices. However, we use our senses to read and interpret those devices so that is not independent verification. Same goes for comparing with other people. They are simply using the same senses that we are.

2. And how do we know we are not dreaming ? And all the evidence and scientific tests that are done are part of that same dream. Your shoes don't fly around while you sleep and yet you may still be asleep when you put them on in the 'morning'. Science cannot address that question. It cannot look outside of its own paradigm.

Yet atheists feel entitled to condemn anyone who suggests there may be more to reality than what our senses provide. Anyone who looks outside of the dream is labelled deluded. Sense perception is obviously a very useful tool but to make it the arbiter of all truth is simply a dogmatic convention no better than what those crazy deluded theists are accused of.

Let's suppose that reality is a subset of consciousness, rather than the other way around.

What happens if you take someone's brain out of their skull, put it in a tank of nutrients designed to keep the brain alive?

Do they perceive "the world" as if nothing is wrong, as their senses are no longer able to provide any stimuli to contradict anything their consciousness comes up with?

Do they simply go insane as their brain generates its own "reality" independent of their sensory input?

Is this what theists are going for? A belief that stabilizes their consciousness into something pleasant once the physical part of the body is no longer able to function? (yes, this assumes that it is possible for consciousness to exist independent of the actual brain).

That raises a crapload of questions, like what happens to their personality? Memory is stored in the brain, we know that. We even have a way to erase memories. So if you're conscious without memory and no input, do you even have a sense of self at all?

And if the reality of consciousness after death is determined by the belief structure, then shouldn't we be telling everyone they go to heaven instead being all dicks about it and trying to reserve for just the people who didn't work on Sunday?

Yet atheists feel entitled to condemn anyone who suggests there may be more to reality than what our senses provide. Anyone who looks outside of the dream is labelled deluded.

This is completely wrong Dominic. I defy you to find a single atheist that says that there is absolutely no more, and can not be any more to reality than what our senses provide. If they do, they're idiots too. Intellectual honesty comes from admitting that it's possible you could be wrong. Trying to look outside the dream is fine. It really is. Just look at those scientists who are trying to determine whether or not our entire existence is some sort of computer program. They are definitely looking outside the box.

What we label as deluded are those people who believe that they have found the Christian God (or any other of the thousands of proposed gods in the history of man) in that search. That's deluded. No... actually its beyond that. It's massively stupid. There is no more evidence that THAT particular version of 'what exists outside of our senses' is the truth than there is for any other deity ever proposed by man.

Sense perception is obviously a very useful tool but to make it the arbiter of all truth is simply a dogmatic convention no better than what those crazy deluded theists are accused of.

Sense perception evolved the way it did because it helped to ensure our survival in THIS world. Our senses miss a crap load of stuff that's happening in the universe. The problem is that they are all we have. There is nothing else with which we can verify truth.

Logged

Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

.... Why do we assume that our senses provide a true and correct picture of reality while a cell's senses report a totally different 'world'? What makes our senses sacred ? Why are you allowed to assume them correct (like a religious dogma) ?

Well that is another distortion. Human senses have been extremely well studied - we know their limitations.

Your persistence with this point betrays your lack of involvement and appreciation of how science is done. Physics is underpinned by mathematical proofs - independent of human senses. Vast tracts of scientific knowledge are subject to statistical rigor - things have to be repeatable. One bit of science relies on other bits of science, mostly using different types of sensors being improved over time and calibrated measurement devices - they tend to corroborate each other and when they don't that leads to more interesting science.

Yet atheists feel entitled to condemn anyone who suggests there may be more to reality than what our senses provide. Anyone who looks outside of the dream is labelled deluded. Sense perception is obviously a very useful tool but to make it the arbiter of all truth is simply a dogmatic convention no better than what those crazy deluded theists are accused of.

No, sorry Dominic this is just rubbish. Atheists do NOT condemn "anyone who suggests there may be more to reality than what our senses provide". We actually find such speculation interesting - and want to know if it is true, and how we might be confident that it is true - quite happy if that method of seeking truth does not involve human senses directly, as long as it all makes sense. A Hadron Collider for example.

You are confused about what atheists reject, and taking it personally. What we condemn is the process that invents whole elaborate realms of makebelieve over and over around different gods throughout history. We condemn hypocritical clergy who don't practice what they preach, but for their own benefit in this reality selfishly manipulate gullible people to believe it all.

If there are any gods, why are they so fickle and apparently incapable of penetrating our human senses with any consistency? What are the gods afraid of? That we might know them for sure? At least to within accuracy limits of our human senses?

Yet atheists feel entitled to condemn anyone who suggests there may be more to reality than what our senses provide. Anyone who looks outside of the dream is labelled deluded. Sense perception is obviously a very useful tool but to make it the arbiter of all truth is simply a dogmatic convention no better than what those crazy deluded theists are accused of.

No I condemn anyone who asserts there is more to reality than what our senses provide, and exactly what it is, without evidence that is perceptible to our senses. Conjecture has led us to some very great discoveries, unsupported assertions have led us to one handed ivory tower mental exercises.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

keeta

Aye, we can all perceive reality very differently, even without brain damage how one person's brain functions can be very different to another. I would not like to presume what it's like or claim authority of knowledge of when somebody is brain damaged as I can't speak from experience nor am I an expert.

i can only speak from my own truth, it's all i know for certain, and the brain is so insanely complex, no two injuries are the same, sometimes you heal from them, and sometimes you just don't, i had a contra coup accident damaging both parts in the front, and parts in the back, which fuks up very specific things, i know many, many brain injured people, and though some of our symptoms are the same, the amount we're able to heal is very different from person to person. my perception of reality is screwed, my spacial awareness is not what it used to be, meaning i think i have more room than i actually do, and bump into shit a lot, i can't tell you if something happened yesterday, today, or 2 years ago, my sense of time is not what it used to be. math now seems like chinese to me...not what it used to be. i can't spell for shit anymore, and most words look wrong when i type them, and if i get it wrong, i'll spell it the same wrong way 9 times before i figure out why it's wrong, can't remember from one page to the next what i read.. my filter is somewhat broken, and yes, sometimes i offend, though i'm not always sure why something is offensive, or funny for that matter, a lot of humor is wasted on me now..what really bites...is knowing how smart i used to be, and what i used to be able to do, and now can't, pisses me off, yet i look fine, so i must be 100% i do agree with the reality is reality, and our own personal perception of said reality is what get's screwed with for what ever reason. drugs are more fun than brain damage any day! and yes dominic, i do take that as a compliment, thank you i try to not let my brain injury show on a daily basis..but sometimes it slips and i just can't do anything about it I have an above average iq post tbi, i can't imagine what a smarty pants i was pre tbi ha ha ha

But I would say, reality itself, never changes, how we perceive it does - we might even have our illusions and certainly, drugs can affect our perception of reality, any hippy will tell you that. However, assuming our senses are working as they should, then we can find common ground in observing evidence in the physical world, I'd say in regards of reality, this is our most reliable asset. A chair is a chair and we can all assess its physical qualities. [/quote]

You get your knowledge of god from others in the dream. They reinforce your desire to pretend to look for a god inside the dream, and then you find god inside the dream, and pretend he's outside the dream, even though you can't possibly know where the boundary is.

Worse, still, unlike the Gnostic version of Christianity, the standard version makes no hint that this is a dream. There is no theological idea to get out of the dream, like there might be with Australian aboriginal culture, or Gnostic Christianity.

Unfortunately, consciousness is a bit like this. Forces within our brain tell us what's real, and their main agenda is to convince us that we are conscious, when we really aren't at all.

Logged

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be bleedn obvious.

You get your knowledge of god from others in the dream. They reinforce your desire to pretend to look for a god inside the dream, and then you find god inside the dream, and pretend he's outside the dream, even though you can't possibly know where the boundary is.

Worse, still, unlike the Gnostic version of Christianity, the standard version makes no hint that this is a dream. There is no theological idea to get out of the dream, like there might be with Australian aboriginal culture, or Gnostic Christianity.

Unfortunately, consciousness is a bit like this. Forces within our brain tell us what's real, and their main agenda is to convince us that we are conscious, when we really aren't at all.

Are you denying consciousness ? Surely you have to be conscious to do that!

Let's suppose that reality is a subset of consciousness, rather than the other way around.

I'll take it you mean physical reality is a subset because consciousness as a whole is also 'reality'.

Quote

What happens if you take someone's brain out of their skull, put it in a tank of nutrients designed to keep the brain alive?

If physical reality is a subset of consciousness, then the brain becomes a particular perception within consciousness - we call it physical or 'real' but it's reality is simply how consciousness perceives it. To feel the meaning of this more acutely, imagine dissecting a brain in a very realistic dream. It seems absolutely physically 'real' but ultimately it is an image or idea in the consciousness of the dreamer.

Do they perceive "the world" as if nothing is wrong, as their senses are no longer able to provide any stimuli to contradict anything their consciousness comes up with?

Quote

Do they simply go insane as their brain generates its own "reality" independent of their sensory input?

Is this what theists are going for? A belief that stabilizes their consciousness into something pleasant once the physical part of the body is no longer able to function? (yes, this assumes that it is possible for consciousness to exist independent of the actual brain).

That raises a crapload of questions, like what happens to their personality? Memory is stored in the brain, we know that. We even have a way to erase memories. So if you're conscious without memory and no input, do you even have a sense of self at all?

And if the reality of consciousness after death is determined by the belief structure, then shouldn't we be telling everyone they go to heaven instead being all dicks about it and trying to reserve for just the people who didn't work on Sunday?

I absolutely agree that religious people can be ignorant both in what they believe (eg all moral truth comes from literal interpretation of a book) and in how they will sometimes try and use their beliefs to belittle others.

Re consciousness after death, NDE reports suggest that it is strongly influenced by belief structures (during life) but there is a lot more than just those belief structures eg telepathy, instantaneous travel and perfect memory are some of the common additional experiences regardless of beliefs during life.

In this thread I have tried to avoid making religious claims. The thread is an attempt to better understand the basic nature of reality. That has to happen before any religious or non religious claims can be made.

So let us imagine a computer denying its own existence. It could be programmed to do that but it would have no knowledge, understanding, realisation or consciousness of what it is doing. It would simply be blindly following an instruction set. It would not actually be denying anything because it does not know what deny means. In fact it does not know - at all.

For a human to deny his own consciousness he must have some idea of what consciousness is and then make a conscious decision to deny it's existence. The conscious decision, by definition, then disproves the veracity of the denial.

You are making a dogmatic attempt to stop others from expressing different views to yours.

Dominic, why do you continue to utilise the physical paradigm to defend the position of the alternative? Why not simply demonstrate the truth of the alternative using that paradigm's means of communication?

I ask for (I think) a third time - when you communicate with us, how do you perceive yourself doing it?

You are making a dogmatic attempt to stop others from expressing different views to yours.

Dominic, why do you continue to utilise the physical paradigm to defend the position of the alternative? Why not simply demonstrate the truth of the alternative using that paradigm's means of communication?

I ask for (I think) a third time - when you communicate with us, how do you perceive yourself doing it?

Sorry Anfauglir, I thought it was a rhetorical question.

I fully accept physical reality and I utilise it. Physical reality exists in both paradigms

The difference between the two paradigms is what takes precedence, consciousness or matter.

In what I'll call the Consciousness Paradigm, consciousness is primary reality. Consciousness manifests in various ways, one of which is what we call the physical or material world. No denying of the material/physical world.

I am also using consciousness when I post my ideas and you use consciousness when you read and respond. I believe that I am primarily using consciousness, and at a secondary level also then using tools within physical reality (computer, keyboard, internet etc).

The difference between the two paradigms is what takes precedence, consciousness or matter.

Then I'm thoroughly lost. We are all agreed that there is physical reality - PCs and so forth. We are also agreed that there is a thing called "consciousness", which involves thought. So what the heck is your point? What do you mean exactly by "precedence"?

Seriously - I'm lost. I thought the point was there was either physical universe, or consciousness.

Are you denying consciousness ? Surely you have to be conscious to do that!

Actually, no, you don't.

There is a school of thought in contemporary ontology that holds, in fact, that consciousness does not exist at all. I don't profess to understand it very well (I haven't kept up since I finished college back in '95), but colloquially stated, the argument goes something like, "You aren't really aware of your own existence; your brain and its 'programming' merely deceive you into thinking that you are."

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Are you denying consciousness ? Surely you have to be conscious to do that!

Actually, no, you don't.

There is a school of thought in contemporary ontology that holds, in fact, that consciousness does not exist at all. I don't profess to understand it very well (I haven't kept up since I finished college back in '95), but colloquially stated, the argument goes something like, "You aren't really aware of your own existence; your brain and its 'programming' merely deceive you into thinking that you are."

That actually makes quite a lot of sense. Clearly what we call consciousness is what the brain conjures up via its neurons and transmitters - there isn't anything else in there. Of course the state of self-awareness is an essential tool for the hunter gatherer - the people we were when humans first evolved and it is pretty handy today in our present technological society but trying to think of it as more than the emergent property of the brain is pushing things too far.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

The difference between the two paradigms is what takes precedence, consciousness or matter.

Then I'm thoroughly lost. We are all agreed that there is physical reality - PCs and so forth. We are also agreed that there is a thing called "consciousness", which involves thought. So what the heck is your point? What do you mean exactly by "precedence"?

Seriously - I'm lost. I thought the point was there was either physical universe, or consciousness.

Anfauglir, see if this helps -

Paradigm 1The dominant school of thought in science is that a standard model of sub-atomic particles form the building blocks of matter and the physical universe is made up from this. Consciousness then, whatever it may turn out to be, somehow comes about within that physical environment.

That is what I am calling the standard physical paradigm which many people take for granted.

Paradigm 2The alternative paradigm which I am putting forward (although I didn't invent it) is a Consciousness Paradigm whereby consciousness is the fundamental constituent of reality (constituent is probably not the best word). Perhaps it might be conveyed more clearly if I say 'in the beginning was consciousness'. Then within consciousness, one particular manifestation of that consciousness is the physical world (aka the universe). Consciousness manifests the physical world and relates to that physical world through sense perception.

I will add that many other worlds (other than the physical) are available to consciousness. Examples of these worlds are dreams, imagination, fantasy, hallucination, drug induced trips, mental ideas, NDEs, OBEs, even perhaps emotions, desires, love, will, all of which are non-material phenomena.

Does that convey the 2 paradigms ?

In a nutshell I think the difference is whether consciousness is a sub-set of matter or matter is a sub-set of consciousness. Do you agree there is avery fundamental difference between the two ?